Quantum Physics - Quantum Dynamics

A Potential Improvement

Physicists were trying to figure out basic facts regarding atomic
structure during the 1920s and 1930s. In general, they made amazingly
good assumptions and conclusions, and the knowledge base grew rapidly.

But given the fact that so little was actually known about any of
the related subjects, and the astoundingly small size of atoms, it is
natural that they made some mistakes. (The size of atoms is suggested
by the fact that if 100,000,000 atoms could be somehow lined up
in a row, that row would not even be as long as the WIDTH of your
little finger!) TWO of those mistakes they made in the 1920s and `1930s
have caused misunderstandings which still haunt modern Nuclear Physics.
Actually, their incorrect understanding of those wrong assumptions was
actually the entire basis for the beginning of what came to be called
Quantum Dynamics!
Along with an earlier incorrect assumption, the field of Nuclear Physics
has been a lot more complicated than it ever needed to be!

One of the two bad assumptions was related to the observed FACT
that we only ever are aware of electrons which have very specific
orbits, that is, kinetic energy. It was incorrectly assumed that this
was due to a QUANTUM characteristic of electron behaviors in atoms,
where the electrons COULD ONLY BE in certain orbits. All other possible
orbits were assumed to be Excluded! (Entirely because they were never
SEEN!)

Those Researchers (and all that have followed them) had overlooked how
rapidly that electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom. The KNEW the
information but then overlooked its significance! It was already
well known that electrons orbit in atoms at speeds that are a substantial
fraction of the speed of light! At such speeds, the time needed to travel
the tiny circumference of an orbit is incredibly short. For example, the
electron in every Hydrogen atom revolves around their nuclei several billion
times every second. Why is this important? Because the detectors that
science has are all rather SLOW! IF a detector captures an image of an atom
AFTER some experiment has altered the atom, it may be 0.001 second after
the alteration before we capture an image. That means that the electron
of interest has completed many millions of orbits BEFORE we are ever
aware of anything!

THIS is important because (in a Classical description) the radius of
the electron orbits CAN and ARE very slowly altered, due to an effect
of gyroscopic precessional motion. IF we could watch individual orbits,
we would not be able to detect the tiny alteration of the electron's
semi-major orbital axis. But after millions of orbits, such slow and
methodical changes DO have observable effects. In fact, BY THE TIME we
can detect anything, the electrons ARE ALREADY in their most stable
orbits. Since we have what I call SLOW EYES, we have never detected any
electrons which have had any other orbits than the ones we know to be
most stable. Specifically, if we were to TOSS AN EXTRA ELECTRON into the
vicinity of an ionized Hydrogen atom, with NO specific preferred orbit or
angular inclination, within an incredibly short interval of time, we would
see that electron in an orbit that we know to be stable.

In other words, if we had FASTER EYES, we would see TRANSITIONS over those
millions of orbits to result in stable orbits, NO MATTER WHAT conditions
the electron had when it entered the atom.

THIS is quite different from the ASSUMPTION that has always been blindly
applied and accepted. An experiment is done to disrupt the electron(s) in an
atom. Then the ASSUMPTION is that the electron (somehow) is suddenly
and instantly in a stable orbit in that atom. THAT assumption is
amazingly poor! With this realization of our SLOW EYES and the recognition
that electron orbits can be and are SLOWLY altered due to gyroscopic
precessional effects, we NOW have a much clearer understanding of
how and why electrons can always seem to have ONLY stable orbits!

When a Sodium atom combines with a Chlorine atom to form a salt molecule,
the electron which gets transferred from being around the Chlorine
atom to now being around the Sodium atom, is NOT smart enough to know
how much "quantum" energy the new atom will expect of it!
IF it had any previous knowledge of expected energy levels in the
Chlorine atom (to then enter into ONLY an allowed Quantum energy state),
all the rules changed when the electron now has to participate in the
Sodium atom. It is clearly NECESSARY for the energy state of the
electron to have to be ALTERED in order to now seem to comply with the
DIFFERENT Quantum energy states of the new atom. In fact, we experimentally
SEE that a specific amount of radiation (color of light) is either
radiated away or absorbed to enable that chemical reaction to occur.
THIS new insight provides an explanation for that process.

The Other wrong assumption which was made by those early
Physicists is related to a known (macroscopic) effect of charged
objects moving in a circular orbits (which the negatively-charged
electrons clearly do in the process of orbiting the nucleus. The
bad assumption was in applying the MACROSCOPIC interpretation to
the sub-microscopic realm of an atom. But once they made that assumption,
then the Classical Model of the atom would clearly be impossible,
as the continually accelerating electron would necessarily radiate
energy away, thereby losing kinetic energy and circling inward
toward the nucleus where it would be absorbed within a second.
THAT argument IS rather compelling, if it were true, and since it was
ASSUMED to be true, it essentially FORCED a variety of attempts to
try to eliminate this obvious problem. Quantum Dynamics became
extremely popular, due to a vagueness in its description! Rather than
describing the energy of electrons as being KINETIC energy of
orbital motion, Quantum instead chose to refer to an indefinite CLOUD
in which the electron must be! This actually does NOT solve the
issue of radiation being emitted, but instead muddles the issue into
a more complex idea where the energy content of an electron is
defined as undefined! The arguments always therefore refer to
PROBABILITIES regarding WHERE an electron might be, while entirely
neglecting any consideration of the ENERGY in that electron!
It was a way to weasel past having to try to explain the Conservation
Laws applying for orbiting electrons!

That approach forces quite a few necessary conclusions which are
illogical! For example, IF whatever it is that represents the electron
is NOT orbiting, then there could be no orbital dynamics to maintain
an orbit! The negatively-charged electron would clearly and logically
immediately head directly for the nucleus, and the atom would cease to
exist as an atom! If there is a CLOUD OF ENERGY which is revolving around
the nucleus, in order to provide the kinetic energy of orbital motion,
then the fact that Einstein taught us that a revolving cloud of
energy IS representable by an OBJECT (mass-energy equivalence) which we
would then call an electron, and we would again face the macroscopic
assumption of continuously radiation energy from every electron.

THAT assumption has been adopted so absolutely, that ALL of the other Laws
of Physics have been abandoned in trying to use Quantum Physics to
describe the atom. Amusingly, the fact that the energy content was
overlooked in first devising this Quantum approach, even means that this
Quantum approach does not actually even resolve the issue in Classical
Mechanics which it claimed to solve!

The resolution of this issue, within Classical Mechanics, is due to
that equivalence of mass and energy, per Einstein. Yes, the curved
path of orbital motion DOES require acceleration, and that DOES then
produce a bundle of energy which might become radiated away. However,
the precessional effects necessarily CREATE kinetic motion of the precessional
motion, and this effect is such that it ABSORBS exactly the amount
of radiation which would get produced (by our macroscopic laws).

The result of this is that the orbiting electron DOES produce a specific
amount of radiation energy, but it then always re-absorbs that
radiation energy such that no net radiation ever occurs or is ever
detected.

There is also an alternative description which was
even available to those Physicists in the 1920s and 1930s.
Einstein had already taught the world that energy and mass are
interchangeable and indistinguishable. Everyone already accepted
that photons sometimes showed evidence of being particles (mass)
(such as in the Photoelectric Effect) and at other times showed
evidence of being waves (energy). The point here is that they
SHOULD HAVE realized that electrons are ALSO sometimes particles
and sometimes energy! So in any experiment that might have confronted
a macroscopic-style issue, the electron might simply have then been
behaving as energy, where no generation of radiation would have
been involved. So, those early Physicists SHOULD HAVE immediately
dismissed the concern of a curved-path orbiting electron having
to radiate energy away, and simply treated the electrons then as
pure energy!

This description MIGHT require that electron "orbits" are
actually SEGMENTED ORBITS. During a STRAIGHT portion of the orbit,
no radiation would be produced, and such radiation would only be
produced at the vertices of the segmented orbit. Again, the radiation
that is then created is immediately re-absorbed to counter the
energy effects of kinetic energy for precessional motion.

Quantum Physics has been a wonderfully useful concept. However, it
seems that it was only necessary because we humans have
"slow eyes"!

Quantum Physics was developed in the 1920s and 1930s because all the
evidence seemed to show that electrons could only exist in certain
specific (orbital) energy states, and that the associated radiation
only occurred or was absorbed at specific energy contents/wavelengths.

It was extremely logical that the early researchers came to the conclusion
that energy had to exist as "bundles" or quanta. But there seems
to be good evidence that they made an unfortunate assumption in that
reasoning.

Yes, in any experiment that we could do, the evidence is definitely
as they found. However, when we "perturb" a lot of atoms
(with external energy or other effects), our research can never determine
the resulting conditions "instantly" as has been assumed.
In fact, it is rarely possible, even today, to determine that resulting
situation more quickly than, say, one one-millionth of a second after
the perturbing effect.

Electron Dynamics in a Hydrogen Atom

If we use the Hamiltonian approach regarding total energy of an electron,
regarding a Hydrogen nucleus (a proton), at an infinite distance away,
we can say that there is zero potential energy and also zero kinetic
energy, for a total of zero. As that electron falls toward the proton, it
loses potential energy (therefore a negative amount), given by k * e / r.
Since it is possible to ionize a Hydrogen atom, entirely removing the
electron to an infinite distance, this energy amount is very well
known, at 13.59844 electron-volt.

The electron also gains kinetic energy of motion in revolving about the
nucleus of 1/2 * m * v2. (a positive amount). These two amounts
of energy must remain equal, in order to Conserve Energy in totaling to
the initial zero total energy of the Hamiltonian.

Therefore, the kinetic energy of revolution of the electron around the
proton nucleus must also be 13.59844 electron-volt. One electron-volt
is equal to 1.602 * 10-12 erg,
or gram-cm2/sec2. This means that we know that the
Potential energy of the electron in a Hydrogen atom is 2.17847
* 10-11 erg. We know the electron mass is equal to
9.109 * 10-23 gram. Therefore, we can solve for the
kinetic orbital velocity, or 6.916 * 105 cm/sec.
This is around 7 km/sec or over 15,000 mph.

We know the diameter of the electron's path around the Hydrogen nucleus as
being about 10-8 cm. This means the circumference of that
orbit is about 3.1 * 10-8 cm. We now have the speed of the
electron in that orbit and the distance it goes, so we can calculate how
many times it revolves per second. This give 2.231 * 10+13
revolutions per second. Electrons in hydrogen atoms therefore normally
revolve around 22 trillion times every second.

If an experiment takes a millionth of a second to determine the resulting
condition, this means that the electron has revolved over 22 million
times before it is seen to be in its resulting "Quantum" orbit.
And this seems to be an indication that we have "slow eyes".

Why might this be important? If the assumption was correct in that
the electron INSTANTLY achieves its orbit, then no other changes would
occur and Quantum Physics would be absolutely true. However, the
calculations above show that many millions of electron orbits
must have occurred before we would even be aware of them. And why might
THAT be important?

We note that negatively charged electrons orbit the positively charged
nucleus due entirely to the inverse square electrostatic attraction
between them. We also note that planets orbit the Sun due entirely
to the inverse square gravitational attraction between them.

Planetary Arrangements

For hundreds of years, astronomers have known of surprising patterns
among the planets and moons in the Solar System. Titius-Bode's Law
showed a simple (near) mathematical relationship between the orbital radii
of all the planets (except the outermost Neptune). The four large
moons of Jupiter revolve with periods that are very near being in
the ratio of 1:2:4:8 (with the outermost being the most off of this
relationship). The many thousands of asteroids are in orbits that
have queer Kirkwood gaps in them, at places where their periods would
have been simple fractions of the orbital period of Jupiter. Many
other systems of moons have such near commensurabilities in them.
The rings of Saturn (and other planets) have gaps which relate to
the orbital periods of moons around those same planets, akin to
the asteroids and Jupiter.

These are NOT just random coincidences! AND we all know that they
did not develop "instantly". No one has yet presented
a good theory regarding how or why such curious patterns exist
among planets and moons (see Part 2 of this presentation for a new
approach). But however they developed, it is clear that many thousands
or millions of orbits were necessary before "mutual perturbations"
eventually caused the observed (near) simple relationships.

See the connection? With planets, we only see a limited number of
orbits, and don't have any way of knowing how many thousands or
millions of years ago that major perturbations occurred, or whether
as in the Jovian system, the four Galilean moons appear to exchange
angular momentum through mutual perturbations. With atoms, we ONLY
can see a situation after many millions of orbits have occurred after
a perturbation. A seemingly logical conclusion is that the SAME
dynamics are involved, both situations being inverse square attraction
systems. It is just that in one case, we only see a few or a few hundred
orbits and in the other, countless millions of orbits.

Therefore, this reasoning concludes that what Quantum Physics sees
as "discrete states" are really that only because we are
incapable of watching the processes during the millions of orbits
prior to what we are able to see. That Quantum Physics is that only
because of our limitations regarding having "faster eyes".

It turns out that this comparison may have many additional side benefits
regarding understandings. We know that (inner) electron orbital sub-shells
can have a maximum of TWO or SIX electrons in them, and that a sub-shell
is incomplete if fewer are resident in that sub-shell. Lagrange showed
that there is a meta-stable solution for planetary motion where two
planets could be on opposite sides of the Sun, i.e., two planets
could share the same orbit. That solution is now called the L3 point.
Note that this arrangement is very similar to two electrons sharing
a single (s) sub-shell in an atom.

Lagrange also derived that there are L4 and L5 stable solutions for
planetary orbits, where an object could revolve in the same orbit as
a previous object, but 60° ahead of or behind the initial object.
Among solar system objects, the asteroids that share Jupiter's orbit
(called Trojan asteroids) are famous examples. The fact that these
are STABLE solutions suggests that material might accumulate at those
points in the solar system, and that eventually there might be three
planets sharing Jupiter's orbit. Consider the situation once that
would occur. NEW Lagrange points would exist 60° ahead of and behind
these, and later still, a sixth planet might form, to result in
six planets orbiting in Jupiter's orbit, all equally spaced from
each other. Note that this arrangement is possibly very similar to the six
electrons which can share a single (p) sub-shell in an atom.

There IS a difference between orbiting planets and orbiting electrons!
The planets have a POSITIVE gravitational attraction to each other, while
the negatively charged electrons have a NEGATIVE electrostatic repulsion
to each other. However, the approach and equations of LaGrange seem
to still be applicable and still result in LaGrange points. One main
difference is that the L3 solution is now STABLE for electrons while it
is unstable for planets. A similar effect exists for six electrons
sharing a sub-orbital, where they repel each other if and when any
get too close to any other, so that LaGrange situation which is stable
for planets is even more stable for electrons.

The implications of this are huge! The central assumption of Quantum
Physics, that electrons can ONLY be in specific orbits (Pauli
exclusion principle, etc) IS true, but only of we look with
"slow eyes". If, instead, we consider that millions of
orbits certainly occurred in that millionth of a second before we can
know any change, and we accept the possibility that very subtle
perturbations could have been occurring during those orbits, then
"traditional physics" becomes fully able of describing
each of the phenomena now claimed explained by Quantum Physics.

The implications are also huge regarding astrophysics. Perturbation Theory
is almost universally a numerical integration of known data points, without
a lot of actual theory behind it! It works excellently as long as we
are only concerned with a few orbits or a few hundred orbits. When
it is used to make orbital predictions beyond a few hundred orbits,
inaccuracies become quite significant.

The current premise considers thousands and millions of orbits, which is
beyond the capability of current Perturbation Theory. The observed
fact that near-commensurable orbital periods are seen in so many
places in the solar system seems to insist that such relationships
have developed over thousands and millions of orbits, even if we do
not currently have any good mathematical or theoretical basis for
what we see.

Conclusion

If we accept the many astronomical observations regarding near
commensurable orbits as being more than just random results, then there
must be some long term causation for them. It is commonly accepted
that Jupiter greatly affects the much smaller asteroids, although BOTH
are actually affected in the process in order to Conserve Energy and
Angular Momentum. The fact that orbits are ellipses rather than circles,
and inclined and oriented to each other in initially random ways,
means that mutual perturbations occur. It is universally accepted that
these effects can alter most of the orbital elements of each body.
Current thinking says that the semi-major axis cannot be altered, because
of the consequence of affecting Conservation laws. This current
reasoning suggests that the Conservation Laws can still apply in
certain cases of alterations in the semi-major axis. Again, this is
generally accepted regarding asteroids.

A toy gyroscope can quickly show a related example of how this can
happen, where Angular Momentum is clearly NOT Conserved in one
specific situation. If you start a gyroscope spinning and place it
on the usual pedestal, horizontally, it initially is not precessing!
However, as soon as you release it, it ACCELERATES up to a precessional
speed. This requires an (angular) acceleration, which Euler's Equations
easily show to get the necessary Energy from a very slight lowering
of the support angle of the gyro, so that gravitational potential
energy has become converted into precessional kinetic energy.
However, before the release, there was NO angular momentum of precession,
which quickly self-develops after it is released. This is a violation of
the Conservation of Angular Momentum!

If that is so, regarding slow transfers of angular momentum and energy
from one planet to another, very long term patterns of commensurability
can develop. Precise commensurability cannot long exist, though,
because of the magnification factor effects of such resonances.
In Mechanical Engineering terms, this is a field of "Forced
Vibration" which addresses this situation which essentially has
no Damping Factor. Therefore, the meta-stable results
are NEARLY commensurable orbital relationships.

Accepting that both planetary dynamics and electron orbital dynamics
are due to inverse-square attractive forces, then these same situations
must occur within atomic electron configurations. There seems to even
be some proof of that fact. The meta-stable near commensurability of
astronomical orbits actually has TWO solutions, one just inward of the
precise commensurability and the other just outward. This indicates
that a planet or moon could equally be in either of two meta-stable
orbits, with a semi-major axis slightly greater or less than the
commensurable orbit would be. (Part 2 of this presentation will
show that the Earth appears to be around 650,000 miles OUT from a
1:12 commensurability with Jupiter, while there is another meta-stable
that was available to the Earth which is around 650,000 miles IN from that
commensurability. These two potential orbits for the Earth are therefore
each around 0.7% different in kinetic energy than a commensurable orbit
would provide. Carrying this reasoning to electrons, each orbital
should therefore be naturally twinned, where two meta-stable orbits
should equally be possible for any electron. This would result in
all spectral lines being closely doubled, and actually, closely
quadrupled, because an electron transition could occur from either
initial orbit to either final orbit. Such close doubling of
spectral lines is observed.

This page - - - - is at This subject presentation was last updated on - -
This presentation was first placed on the Internet in 2006.